Dear Editor,
Last Sunday (June 27) the Stabroek News carried an article authored by Andre Haynes entitled ‘CADRES poll sample not representative of national demographic profile,’ and we believe that this warrants a response which speaks to the methodological issues raised as well as to the circumstances that have given rise to the publication of this article. In this instance we prioritise the latter issue which speaks volumes about the environment in which political discourse takes place in Guyana. This incident should serve as a warning to other professional entitles that conduct legitimate business in Guyana under the mistaken impression that their confidential communication is neither listened to nor tracked by any third party and moreover that persons who breach such regulations are categorised as thieves and not champions.
Haynes’ article made reference to a CADRES report from which it claimed to have been quoting; however no report other than the two releases (which were delivered to all sections of the press in Guyana), was conveyed to either Haynes or Stabroek News. CADRES did prepare an extensive report on its recent survey which was delivered exclusively to its client electronically, and Haynes seems to be quoting from a doctored version of that said report. The fact that Stabroek purported to publish sections of a report that was not given to it and the authenticity of which had not been verified reflects poorly on this media house since the news items could be based on information that was either fabricated or stolen.
CADRES is confirmed in its belief that Haynes has been able to procure documents which have been electronically mailed, since on one previous occasion shortly after a draft document was delivered electronically to our client in Guyana, Haynes telephoned Peter Wickham and indicated that he had the press release and “wondered if he could run with it.” In response, Wickham said that there was no release yet and that he should wait. Haynes then continued and argued that he had the “full report, long time” and was just waiting for the opportunity to let it go. In both instances, the reports were delivered electronically to a single individual (not Haynes) who in one instance did not even have the opportunity to read it before Haynes telephoned Wickham. CADRES is familiar with schemes where e-mail is intercepted by electronic snooping mechanisms since these are becoming popular across the region (most recently during the Dominica election); however, we are also aware that these procedures are entirely illegal unless sanctioned by a state agency which we presume would not have been the case in this instance.
Haynes’ article and the presumption that he was in possession of this information “long time” also raises other ethical issues such as the prudence of publishing a report which he now argues is “fundamentally flawed.” One wonders why Haynes would have jeopardised the reputation of the Stabroek News if he believed the survey to be flawed. There is also the question of the publication of data on the issue of leadership in Guyana which Stabroek carried on the Wednesday before the Friday that CADRES intended to release this aspect of the poll. We presume that Stabroek was anxious to demonstrate its ability to get the ‘scoop’ on all other media houses; however, no attempt was made by them to verify the authenticity of the information presented in the name of CADRES. This was drawn to our attention and after discussion with our client, we determined that Stabroek News was clearly on a “frolic” of its own and declined to publish any further information from this poll. We wish to reiterate that the survey was privately commissioned and is therefore not the property of any media entity in Guyana. CADRES did release aspects of the poll; however the entire poll continues to be the private property of the owners of that intellectual property.
In addition to methodological issues, the article in question also quoted unnamed source from the PNC in its attempt to imply that CADRES is unfamiliar with Guyana’s politics and therefore misled the PNCR in 2006. It is unfortunate that this “source” was not willing to be identified, especially since the PNC’s outgoing leader went on record with respect to his regard for the CADRES poll days earlier. Notwithstanding, CADRES would wish to remind the Stabroek News that the PNCR did not win the 2006 election and we are therefore curious to know what CADRES told the PNCR that caused this “disastrous” performance of theirs. We can also state categorically that at no time did we express the view that the PNCR would win an outright majority in 2006.
Finally, we turn to the issue of methodology and this suggestion that we deliberately skewed the sample by interviewing an unrepresentative number of Africans and Indians. CADRES rejects the suggestion that we deliberately skewed the sample and we also deny the implicit suggestion that we were asked by our client to do so. At all times during this exercise CADRES was fully responsible for methodological issues and as we stated in our first release, we were given no instructions by the client regarding any preferred outcome. We have encountered these issues previously in multi-racial societies like Trinidad and Guyana where persons assume that polling is simply a matter of interviewing 430 Indians and 300 Africans in a public space like Stabroek market. We reject this as being methodologically flawed and believe that a reliable survey of public opinion needs to capture a range of demographic characteristics. Moreover we believe that if race is related to party support then any attempt to replicate party support patterns would by its very nature be representative of racial patterns. Contrary to what the Haynes’ article suggested, the CADRES method is scientifically sound and considerably more sophisticated than most methods adhered to around the region as any client of CADRES can easily confirm.
CADRES appreciates the fact that it operates in a highly politicised environment but nonetheless seeks to operate in a professional and transparent manner. We accept that our clients will often have political motives; however when we release information to the public we attempt to do so in an objective manner. At any rate, the public is free to accept or dismiss our polls and we expect to be criticised by those who believe that our assessment is not what they would like. We do think, however, that on this occasion the Stabroek News and its functionary Andre Haynes crossed the line of decency and ethics and the foregoing sought to clarify any misconceptions and draw the public’s attention to some disturbing trends in Guyanese journalism.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Wickham
CADRES
Editor’s note
1. Stabroek News was given a copy of the CADRES report, although not by the polling agency or its client. Contrary to what Mr Wickham supposes, however, copies of that report were in restricted circulation, and we obtained one of these from a trustworthy source. The document was not “doctored,” as he claims; as is normal practice we reported on its contents and quoted relevant sections. This newspaper would not be a party to ‘electronic snooping,’ and Mr Wickham’s allegations on that score are both misplaced and fanciful.
As for publishing the contents of a document of public interest even though it had not been officially released by the compiler, that is standard newspaper practice all over the world, and is an acknowledged part of the media’s job.
We should also say it is standard practice as well for newspapers to carry a number of reports derived from the same document, as happened in this instance.
2. Mr Haynes did not “argue” that the demographic sample for the 2010 poll was “fundamentally flawed”; editorializing does not belong in reportage, and was not done in this instance. The writer simply reported on the fact that the sample was not representative of the national demographic profile, and in the very first paragraph included the pollster’s general response to this. His attempt to elicit a fuller reaction from Mr Wickham was unfortunately not successful, so there can be no allegation that we did not seek to achieve balance in the story. Since this was a report, it was left for the reader to decide whether a sample which did not correspond to the country’s demographic profile constituted a ‘flaw’ or not. Such editorial comment as there was, appeared in the leader which was carried in the same edition, not in Mr Haynes’s report.
3. At no time have we accused CADRES of lacking integrity – in this case by ‘deliberately skewing’ the sample – and such an implication was simply not contained in our news story. Similarly, we made no such allegation in the editorial either – quite the contrary, in fact – although the suggestion that the results of the 2010 poll might be wrong was made. As Mr Wickham is aware, we have defended CADRES against the charge that the poll was “bogus”; we believe that it was done in good faith using a methodology that Mr Wickham believed was “scientifically sound.” That does not mean that the results cannot be open to criticism, and cannot perhaps be “wrong.”
